Since when is rape about sexuality? Rape is about power, at least according to every single solitary writing about rape I've ever read.

It's an obvious truth that our societies shape us, you could equally well have said that the fact that we've grown up in a christian society leads us to believe that all human lives are sacred, and that killing in nearly all circumstances is wrong, or that in areas of asia their cultural upbringing leads them to believe it can be justifiable to stone a girl to death for loving someone of a different religious faction. You just have to go for the worst, the holocaust, to create that mental link of negativity. I never said you used Hitler as an example, but as an analogy, believe it or not I know the difference.

Of course this is true, it's not even just the media. In ancient times it was the preacher (who worked for the local land lord).

You have indirectly or directly compared (as an analogy) our current culture to that (the methodology) of the Nazi's, at least indicating that you yourself believe it to be evil. You really have no reason to bring Nazi's into the picture, we all know that people are a combination of their genes and their upbringing/culture.


OK, so, we are not being the same as the Nazi's, we are simply working like human beings, which is exactly what the nazis were doing. Just because the Nazi's breathed doesn't mean that we're doing the same as them. In the past, we were conditioned by the churct to behave a certain way towards sex, a way where sex before marriage was bad, people were utter prudes and nobody really enjoyed sex because it was sinful, contraception is murder so diseases spread blah blah. What you are saying is that you favour the christian conditioning over todays sensationalising conditioning, and that is an entirely subjective moral opinion.

Once again, the discussion simply falls to different political philosophical doctrines. I believe in personal freedom to the highest level - to the point of a structured anarchic state (slight oxymoron). I don't believe not wearing a seatbelt should be illegal, although I might agree that you might have to pay for the healthcare yourself in an accident. I believe all drugs should be legal. You seem to believe in a paternal society, both in religion and law, in which people are told what to think, and have that enforced by throwing them in jail if their priorities in life are different to yours, to whatever degree it is that you personally see fit.

The point is that they wouldn't like to watch it if she was happy to have that done to her, because the thrill for them is the forced aspect of it, as I'm sure you're aware.

So people can't watch a fictional piece of work depicting someone shoplifting and getting away with it? Your example is a miss.

There is your personal opinion on what is right and wrong, greatly influenced by your religion. What is wrong, is forcing your beliefs on other people.

Yes we do live in a world where people get hurt. And I live by the "harm" principle - you cannot constrict somebodies freedom unless they are hurting someone else. Obviously rape and torture DO harm other people - I really don't see what this has to do with anything in this discussion.

I hate to break it to you, but this has been going on for millenia before TV was even invented. It's called human nature, it's a bummer.

Sure, we don't like real snuff videos. Nobody ever said differently in this thread.

Nobody tolerates real snuff, where people are actually hurt. In fact there are very strict laws against this in basically every country of the world.

"Sincere"? Yes. Obviously watching real people getting raped for real is bad. As it breaks the "harm principle".

There is a line, "the harm principle". Free speech with boundries ISN'T free speech. And haven't you seen the police escorting nazi protestors and defending them from people, to defend their right to freedom of speech and protest?

Fantastic, and irrelevent. Great, there are some paedos out there, think we don't know that? And I'm all for the legalisation of virtual child porn, I suppose. Simply in the freedom of speech/information vein of things. Real acts where children are hurt is obviously different, a difference you so far have seemed unable to see.

The line, as I've said before is the "Harm principle". If you harm someone else, it is illegal. If you're minding your own business watching an animation of someone raping a baby, whatever, I don't have the right to tell you what to do.



How has my argument bitten myself? I'm saying that the world is full of influences you might not like, which is why you need to teach your own morals to your children.

While I was writing that I was considering putting in some brackets to say that I was simply furthering your example, since it meant something to you, but I decided that it was obvious, and that I didn't need to. I guess I was wrong.

yes, anon. very much so - on every level.

i enjoy the discussion - but i do find that arguing with you is not different from arguing with a 16 year old, except that you are decidedly more articulate than most.

the whole "i can't tell you what to do" ideaology is childish. if you're ok with someone sitting at home watching virtual depictions of infant abuse - and the inevitable danger associated with that kind of behavior isn't compelling to you -

then we have no common ground here.

but, having acknowledged that, this is just for fun:

I never said you used Hitler as an example, but as an analogy, believe it or not I know the difference.

Whilhelm, I can't help but smirk to myself when people draw upon Hitler as an example to prove their point about something.

maybe i misread your two statements here. or maybe you're confused. my bet's on the latter.

You just have to go for the worst, the holocaust, to create that mental link of negativity.

if i would have known this would be such a stumbling block, i would have used something else. like, how about the inquisition? or the salem witch hunts?

truth is nazi, germany is a perfect illustration of how the media (that is, organized communication) can be used to control behavior - which was the subject of my original proposition. better than any other i can think of, but i'm no historian.

we all know that people are a combination of their genes and their upbringing/culture.

i would think so. if we agree on this point, and i also understand you to be opposed to any regulations or impositions that would influence that culture -

i can only conclude that you don't care if the culture that "creates" us is characterized by negative influence.

saying that humanity has always been ridden with rape, murder, and oppression is a cop-out, anon.

the same responsibility you (rightly) lay at the feet of parents also lies at your own feet. we share the responsibilit to, if i can borrow your words - teach our children our code of morality.

advocating for porn that depicts things that are illegal - while advocating for the prosecution of those crimes is an amazing hypocrisy.

not surprising for me, though. i find that hypocrisy is at the heart of anyone's interest in/consumption of porn. i have yet to meet a porn user who wants his/her daughter to do porn.

similarly, let me cry out against the evil of child molestation, demand the swift administration of justice for those who perpetrate sex crimes...

but defend anyone's right to use porn that depicts those crimes.

why not hand me a box of twinkies while i'm on the treadmill & b*tch at me about my weight.

convoluted, at best.

we seem to agree that people are influenced by culture to do bad things. you just don't think we should do anything about it.

that's fine, anon. you've adopted the "don't bother me & i won't bother you" attitude. unfortunately, the guys who get off on watching infants & toddlers being raped don't operate that way.

fortunately, though, there were folks in the history of my country who believed a little differently - otherwise i'd be speaking german today.

I believe in personal freedom to the highest level - to the point of a structured anarchic state (slight oxymoron).

silly. there's no such thing as a slight oxymoron. it is or isn't. structured anarchy is NOT anarchy. you're just revealing more of the hypocrisy. you want anarchy to allow you to move the way you want to - and structure to make sure nobdy moves in a way that hurts you.

as i've told you before - people have sought this for centuries. people like to create their own rules & then call them "reality."

What you are saying is that you favour the christian conditioning over todays sensationalising conditioning, and that is an entirely subjective moral opinion.

when did i bring christianity into this. if you mean to say that i favor a world in which we don't allow people to film rape & glorify it as a masturbatory tool...

then i guess you're right.

did you mean that?

since it became the subject of so much pornography.

Has abuse on human kind just begun or has it always been. I think its been an ongoing battle and its a shame that as hard as one good person tries to rise above there are 10 others sinking below. I personally believe that everyone has a choice in life to do right or wrong. Both men and women have been abused sexually, physically and emotionally within our society as children and as adults.
I don't know if anyone watched that documentary on ''When she does it''. It talked about the sexual abuse that women do to young boys and teenagers, and the statistics were just about as high as young girls. Men just don't pursuit their abusers as women do.
The world has a larger population than 100 years ago, the media airs the crimes of people all over the world which people didn't have years ago. Abuse was hushed up more and we are just seeing the fallout of all the abuse that has occurred throughout time and it has masculated out of control.

I blame women for drinking and doing drugs while pregnant, women for exploiting their own bodies-not all prostitutes and porn stars come from broken up homes. Men who don't want to be apart of their children's lives. 70% of suicides come from fatherless homes-I have 3 siblings that spoke and attempted to commit. More obese children come from fatherless homes-less child play, moms are stressed can't do it all on her own. More abuse occurs in fatherless homes opposed to none in joint custody.
Social Services for breaking up homes and allowing our children to be exposed to peddlers and other forms of ubbuse. Only 2% percent of biological fathers commit sex abuse on their children apposed to 17% from stepfathers, and the rest fall into other categories. And of course money and power the root of all evil. Oh and one else- idle hands are the devils work. Hope I didn't offend anyone just done a lot of reading after I had my 3 children taken from us. We will get them back after counseling but what I read up on in the past month gave me a lot of insight to my own past. I also hope I didn't stray from the topic too much. Love u all.

Did you mean to say "none in joint custody" or was that a slip-up? Seriously?
God, I wish that my sister and I had been taken away from our mother. We could have led much happier, more productive lives. But instead we were victims of a system that refuses to protect the children of the mentally ill as long as that mentally ill parent stays married, or stays quiet. I'm sorry for your loss and hope that you get your children back as soon as possible, but I am admittedly bitter from the lack of protection I was given as a child.
I'm not sure that I agree with you, Whilhelm, on the nature of rape changing because of pornography. You'll have to back that one up. Of course, I wonder how the conclusion was made that rape wasn't about sex. Did they ask the rapists?